Yes we should return to a two tier differentially funded system which writes kids off academically at 11...
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
It wasn't comprehensive it was grammar or secondary modern. Comprehensive replaced Grammar/ secondary modern.
And yes, funding per capita was around 2/3 for secondary modern.
Loads of kids failed 11 plus ( tended to be younger end of year cohort) Failed in secondary modern, but went on to achieve academically later in life.
So you are saying its right to test kids at 11 and from those tests decide who is academically capable of matriculation at 18 and who isn't ??
Was a stupid system.
And yes kids were ACADEMICALLY written off. They didn't even follow old GCE syllabus at secondary modern.( Only when they became comprehensive) in many subjects.
We could bring back caning as well.
Ps Trex. The clue is in comprehensive...covers everything. You should have googled it before spouting.
Last edited:
yes, mine struggles to reach anything over 50 with only me in it (and I went and bought one a fraction of the value of a Messerschmitt). What was a 250cc excelsior talisman like? I read it was bored open to make the Berkeley (who then added another cylinder to make a 492cc triple). Mine is gutless and so smoky I think of converting it to electric, which could be easy, it only weighs 275kg
in Africa that bottleneck occurs in ones final year of school in which one either gets university exemption, or not (in which case to be blunt one can be screwed, IMHO, more so in the socially unsupportive reality that is Africa). So it becomes Darwinian and one either pulls finger or not.
"My Government will lead the way in defeating modern SLAVERY""
says Teresa May
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/30/we-will-lead-the-way-in-defeating-modern-slavery/
After that? oh sure!
flud, you misunderstood me completely. A kid failing his/her 11+ goes to on to a comprehensive school, he/she is not a failure and won't be one if the school does a good job. It does not worsen the prospect of that kid, that is my point. The lucky kids who pass the 11+ and go to a grammar school goes to their school of choice, may end up better or worse, that remains to be seen, but they get to their school of choice, better for them. My point here is streaming exists in all schools, so the issue is not streaming, but grammar schools do push kids to be more ambitious and they're not co-ed, the atmosphere in grammar schools is more conductive to learning, more of their students go on to take science and technology subjects. The country will benefit.
Last edited:
Trex
No you are wrong. A kid failing 11 plus went onto secondary modern and had 2/3 the money spent on them.
Some kids went to comprehensive having failed 11plus during transition to comprrrehensive schools.
Comprehensive ( like I told you in last post) replaced system of secondary modern or Grammar.
It was up to local authorities when grammars finished , and obviously you had kids who,d taken 11 plus in comps as they worked through school.
This process started in 60's. Comps in our area opened in 68, but Grammar didn't close till 5 years later so that the kids who started in 67 could finish grammar school.
There was never a system for going to comps having failed 11plus. ( except during transition)
Comps received same funding per capita as Grammar. Secondary modern did not. Comps could offer same range and ( in theory) same standard as Grammar but to do so they needed to be big. ( they reckoned 1200 kids, 10 class entry roughly) was needed to achieve range of subjects.
I understood you perfectly. As normal its somebody else who misses point.
Grammar was academically elitist. It made decisions about kids academic ability too early. Yes current system has its faults but its not elitist and has ( relatively) equal per capita funding everywhere. ( except special ed,which cab be upto 5 times rate) but that's another issue.
The rest of your post is. based on opinion. Its outdated and could never be returned to. Grammar's did well because they attracted higher calibre staff, had better facilities,had better funding and their input generally had a better view towards education. Of course Grammars did well, but at a cost to others and in some cases to kids at grammars. Single sex schools are just bonkers, belong in Victorian times or with ISIS.
No you are wrong. A kid failing 11 plus went onto secondary modern and had 2/3 the money spent on them.
Some kids went to comprehensive having failed 11plus during transition to comprrrehensive schools.
Comprehensive ( like I told you in last post) replaced system of secondary modern or Grammar.
It was up to local authorities when grammars finished , and obviously you had kids who,d taken 11 plus in comps as they worked through school.
This process started in 60's. Comps in our area opened in 68, but Grammar didn't close till 5 years later so that the kids who started in 67 could finish grammar school.
There was never a system for going to comps having failed 11plus. ( except during transition)
Comps received same funding per capita as Grammar. Secondary modern did not. Comps could offer same range and ( in theory) same standard as Grammar but to do so they needed to be big. ( they reckoned 1200 kids, 10 class entry roughly) was needed to achieve range of subjects.
I understood you perfectly. As normal its somebody else who misses point.
Grammar was academically elitist. It made decisions about kids academic ability too early. Yes current system has its faults but its not elitist and has ( relatively) equal per capita funding everywhere. ( except special ed,which cab be upto 5 times rate) but that's another issue.
The rest of your post is. based on opinion. Its outdated and could never be returned to. Grammar's did well because they attracted higher calibre staff, had better facilities,had better funding and their input generally had a better view towards education. Of course Grammars did well, but at a cost to others and in some cases to kids at grammars. Single sex schools are just bonkers, belong in Victorian times or with ISIS.
Last edited:
sorry we have our wires crossed. There are still 163 grammar schools. When I said 'I blame the abolition of grammar schools', I mean the move to abolish the 11+ test in many counties and to force conversion of grammar schools to non-selective schools has a big detrimental effect on the number of students taking up science and engineering in higher education. That move may be politically justifiable but I think it's populist and wrong.
Yes, they were bored for the Berkeley. The standard 250 Talisman was usual for a two stroke of those days, of low end ok but not so good for top speed, which was 65mph. The twin carburettor Sport Talisman made 70 mph.
.
You are making links and assumptions based on what trex ?
I,m talking about system which educates 99.5% of our children. You are drawing conclusions on one that educates 0.5%..
Remaing grammars are merely a throwback to a past era. Yes , they represent a priviliged few who can afford the coaching to force feed their kids to pass the archaic tests. They should be closed.
Its private education paid for by government... Try getting your kids in one..
As for the benefit of testing at 11...kids nowadays do 5 times more testing than when 11 plus was compulsory...It benefits nothing. Go speak to a teacher.
flud, it's based on personal experience and the schools I visited. 'private education paid for by government' - no, totally untrue. It's simply a stream with similar funding, ethos and level of equipment. The visible difference is the atmostphere which may have something to do with single sex education.
Bullshit.
Try it without the elitist entry.
There are just so many levels this is wrong.
Kids getting in ,by sheer nature of tests and backgrounds, are not indicative of population as a whole.
Which study says educating sexes in isolation is more successful.( reverse is actually true if you did some research about it)
Its pointless anyhow, as if any future government is going to say.
" right we,ll reintroduce 11 plus, close comps and open single sex Schools. Grammar for boys and High Schoold for girls... Its laughable...barmy..sexist.elitist and plain wrong...based on conclusions ( wrong at that) drawn from 0.5% of schools which cherry pick kids and staff, receive normal funding plus "parental help"..
Get real flex.. They should be closed. They are an anachronism in modern society. Surprised feminists aren,t storming places.
Last edited:
the heads and staff are recruited from the same people.
Where does the elitism come from flud? surely not from the pupils.
You are joking aren,t you.!
A) They are BOYS...a type of elitism to start with..why closed to girls ?
B) The boys have to pass specific tests for that particular school. That involves coaching in nearly every case. Coaching by private tutors knowledgeable in type of tests likely to be encountered. ( nothing like current state school curriculum, which by law kids have had to follow anyway.. ( national curriculum is law enforced)
C) Regional. Look where schools are.
I,m not against private ed, if a parent wants an elitist education for their kids and they can afford it, fine. But these are neither private or state. They receive govenmebt funding but are still allowed to pick who can and who cant enter.
It takes a certain level of delusion to not see the elitism in all that.
And to draw any conclusions from such schools is completely and utterly ridiculous.
Its like saying our local comp doesn't produce as good footballers as MUFC academy..its just the same. ( apart from fact MUFC do not get government funding)
The old 11 plus was to identify those puils capable of getting what was called matriculation.( 2 a levels, 4 GCE/ GCSE in comps) It was believed at time that needed an IQ of 120. The 11 plus tried to find that group.( ie all those with 120 plus) Its been realised since the tests were neither valid or reliable at the task. Education has moved on, apart from in your Grammar schools..( Interestingly Jamaica to this day relies on a very similar system. It produces fantastic intellects, but loads more totally disaffected teenagers..
Ps. What is your plan for the girls. Washing, ironing and cleaning.. Come on trex at least join 20th century.
Last edited:
I don't have any desire to perpetuate grammar schools, but I am strongly in favour of single sex education at secondary level, each with their own gender schools.
There's an abundance of evidence that boys secondary education has suffered in mixed sex schools, I hardly need to spell out the obvious reasons.
.
You are both dreaming again because neither are ever going to happen..ever ever.. ,and for good reasons. Both concepts fatally flawed.
And there is also evidence to suggest single sex schools do damage..for obvious reasons .
And there is also evidence to suggest single sex schools do damage..for obvious reasons .
Last edited: